Tag Archives: Shale Gas

Geothermal, Peak Oil

Government Says ‘Plenty, Cheap, No Worry!’ But Others Say, ‘Worry’

Richard Ha writes:

This is a really good graph that shows three projections for future gas production through the year 2040. Click on this postcarbon.org graph and you'll see the black line shows a University of Texas study, the red line shows David Hughes's projection and the blue line represents the government's EIA projection. 

The government projection shows nothing to worry about. Plenty, plenty, plenty!

But the others show an entirely different story. They suggest we better start making some other plans.

Conventional oil, which is our regular oil supply like from Russia and OPEC, hit its max in 2005. It's shale gas and oil that has increased our oil and natural gas supply in the last few years. But it appears that shale gas and oil will start to decline soon and if so, we need to start down the road to adapting to what will soon be again-rising oil prices. 

On the Big Island, geothermal can replace oil and LNG. Not many other places are as fortunate. We just need to be smart and figure out what works.

Geothermal works. We don't have to get there tomorrow, and we don't have to get there in a straight line. We just have to get there. 

We have a way to do this on the Big Island: Geothermal. It's a gift. 

This podcast with David Hughes, author of the recent report Drilling Deeper for the Post Carbon Institute, talks more about this. 

It's all common sense. It’s about data and science—water does not flow uphill, no matter how much we wish it would. Nothing about this is beyond the average person. I find that rubbah slippah folks understand all this in a few minutes.

Peak Oil

The Cost of Farming

2 Comments

Richard Ha writes:

Now that the GMO discussion has stabilized, let’s move forward.

There is a big picture here that is not being discussed. In the coming weeks, I will be writing about various input costs of farming, because as costs go up we need to be planning and preparing. 

Today I want to discuss what farming looks like from a farmer’s point of view. 

Farmers were shocked back in 2008 when the cost of nitrogen fertilizer spiked. Ammonia is a key component for making nitrogen fertilizer, as well as plastics and pesticides, and the cost of ammonia is highly correlated with the price of natural gas.

Impact of Rising Natural Gas Prices on U.S. Ammonia Supply

Natural gas is the primary raw material used to produce ammonia. Approximately 33 million British thermal units (mm Btu) of natural gas are needed to produce 1 ton of ammonia. Natural gas accounts for 72-85 percent of the ammonia production cost, depending on the size of the ammonia plant and the price of ammonia (TFI (a)). Ammonia prices were weakly correlated with natural gas prices before 2000, but became strongly correlated after 2000….  Read the rest

Natural gas had been cheap, but its cost started rising and, in 2008, it reached $12/thousand cubic feet (mcf). I addressed the State Farm Bureau convention and told the farmers it was not their fault that fertilizer and input costs had risen so much and that their costs were suddenly so high.

After 2008, the price of natural gas declined dramatically because of shale oil and shale gas production. It dropped below $3/mcf. Right now it’s slightly higher, a little over $4/mcf,  because of winter home heating. 

So we’ve seen the effects of high natural gas prices on farming input before, back in 2008, and we know it will go up again.

What exactly is the outlook for the price of natural gas and therefore fertilizer, plastics and pesticide costs?

On the mainland, thousands of wells produce natural gas. Keep in mind, though, that the average gas well produces 90 percent of its total production – 90 percent of everything it’s going to ever produce – in its first five years. In contrast, Saudi Arabia oil fields have lasted for more than 50 years.

It’s only common sense that natural gas prices are going to rise, and therefore our farming input costs will go even higher. The only question is how fast and how high?

Coming up I’ll write about what people are predicting, as far as when prices will go up and how high they will go.

Biofuel, Peak Oil

We Need More People With Cutting-Edge Energy Knowledge!

1 Comment

Richard Ha writes:

Hawai‘i should be sending more people to the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO) conference. The folks at ASPO are on the leading edge of energy data interpretation. We need more people with cutting -edge energy knowledge.

aspo logo

For example, for several years now ASPO folks have been utilizing Energy Return on Investment (EROI) as a tool to evaluate energy
options.

If HECO had understood the concept and its parameters, it
may not have committed to Aina Koa Pono’s biofuel project so wholeheartedly.

Biofuels, in general, have very low EROI ratios (net energy). It takes a ratioof 3 to 1 just to maintain society’s petroleum infrastructure. Biofuels, except for cane ethanol, are lower than 2 to 1.

If we can’t make money in Hawai‘i now with cane ethanol, what makes us think we can do cellulosic biofuels, which are more costly and more difficult?

Despite spending hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, there are zero commercial competitive cellulosic biofuels in production
today. Zero. We wish AKP well, but it should use its own money, not that of the rate payers.

The shale oil and shale gas story is probably only be an interim solution. Aubrey McClendon, the fracking cheerleader of Chesapeake Energy, has been removed as its Chairman and will soon resign as CEO. The ASPO folks have known for several years that shale oil and gas is a bunch of financial smoke and mirrors.

When HECO responded to Consumer Advocate questions about how it justified its pricing, the utility used the Energy Information Agency (EIA) 2012 AEO report’s high-case scenario for its long-term forecast.

But the EIA’s short-term forecast, just a couple of weeks ago, estimates the 2014 price of oil at $101/barrel – while HECO estimates that oil will cost $180/barrel in 2015. The rate payer wouldn’t care about this if they didn’t have to subsidize the biofuels at $200/barrel.

Putting a secret $200/barrel biofuel surcharge on rate payers, and then telling them, “Trust us, this won’t hurt much” – while raising the pay of top executives – stands in sharp contrast to the CEO of Japan Airlines, who insists on being treated exactly like his workers. Watch that short (2:20) video for a very different approach than we are used to. Really interesting.

Related articles
Is HECO Seriously Damaging Its Credibility?
Shale Gas & Shale Oil, Only a Short-Term Bubble
Energy & the Future of the Big Island
Geothermal, Peak Oil

Are Shale Gas & Shale Oil Hope or Hype?

Richard Ha writes:

This video is well worth watching.

It’s called “Shale Promises or Shale Spin? The Economics
Behind Hydrofracking. A Conversation with Deborah Rogers.” If you are following this subject at all, you should watch it.

Deborah Rogers began her financial career in London working
in Corporate Finance, specifically venture capital.

Upon her return to the U.S., she worked as a financial consultant for nearly a decade for several major Wall Street firms, including Merrill Lynch and Smith Barney.

She has also served on the Advisory Council for the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas and on a task force for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

She currently serves on a regional steering committee for the Oil and Gas Accountability Project (OGAP) and has the responsibility of addressing economic questions.

An entrepreneur herself, she founded Deborah’s Farmstead, an
artisanal cheese-making operation, now one of the premier artisanal cheese dairies in the U.S.

She was featured in a lengthy NY Times article by Ian Urbina on June 26, 2011 entitled Insiders Sound an Alarm Amid a Natural Gas Rush.

Shale gas and shale oil: Are they hype, or hope? We farmers want to know.

Nitrogen fertilizers, chemicals, plastics and other farm supplies are made from natural gas as long as it is cheap. Do we really have a hundred years’ worth of supply, and will it be cheap?

At the 2009 Association for the Study of Peak Oil conference in Denver, the petroleum geologist and consultant Art Berman described his analysis of 4,000 wells in the Barnett Shale. He showed that the average gas well produces 70 percent of its total production in the first year.

Also on the panel, though, was an oil/gas company executive, who said their calculations show that gas wells will produce for 22 years.

Now, three years later, we see that there are wells generating $120/day and they are still in production. What does that mean in
the whole scheme of things? Who is right?

There is more data now, and it still, consistently, shows that shale gas – and, by the way, shale oil – depletes really quickly, like 90 plus percent in the first five years.

And it costs $4 million or so to drill each well. Now that there is so much more data, the math on this is easy.

Farmers do not care who is right. Farmers only care about what is right. So while we do appreciate the low, below-break-even costs of nitrogen fertilizer, chemicals, plastics and other farm supplies today, we are also calculating what our costs might be if the price of natural gas rises to $5, $6, $8/mcf (thousand cubic feet).

If we cannot control the price of oil or natural gas, what do we do?

We must pivot to what is cheap and stable and actually works. 

The petroleum age is barely 150 years old and already we are worrying that it will not last another 50 years; it might last even fewer years than that.

On the other hand, the Big Island will be over the geothermal hot spot for 500,000 to a million years.

The rubbah slippah folks get it. This not rocket science!

Geothermal, Peak Oil, Renewable Energy Sources

Shale Gas & Shale Oil, Only a Short-Term Bubble

1 Comment

Richard Ha writes:

From ShaleBubble.org:

THEY TELL US

WE’RE ON THE CUSP OF AN OIL & GAS REVOLUTION.

But what if it’s all just a short-term bubble?


The Reality is that the so-called shale revolution is nothing more than a bubble, driven by record levels of drilling, speculative lease & flip practices on the part of shale energy companies, fee-driven promotion by the same investment banks that fomented the housing bubble, and by unsustainably low natural gas prices. Geological and economic constraints – not to mention the very serious environmental and health impacts of drilling – mean that shale gas and shale oil (tight oil) are far from the solution to our energy woes.

This makes total sense to me.

In 2009, at the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO) conference in Denver, I attended a panel discussion on natural gas production.

Arthur Berman, a petroleum geologist and energy consultant, talked about analyzing 4,000 Barnett Shale wells. He found that an average well produces 70 percent of its production in the first year. This made sense to me: It’s a gas.

An industry person on the panel said that life span of the wells is calculated to be 22 years. Obviously, they must produce at a very low rate later in their life span, compared to their first year’s production. One has to keep drilling more just to stay in one place.

In this landmark report “Drill Baby Drill,” J. David Hughes of Post Carbon Institute takes a far-ranging and painstakingly researched look at the prospects for various unconventional fuels to provide energy abundance for the United States in the 21st Century. While the report examines a range of energy sources, the centerpiece of “Drill, Baby, Drill” is a critical analysis of shale gas and shale oil (tight oil) and the potential of a shale “revolution.”

From the Executive Summary of “Drill Baby Drill:“

World energy consumption has more than doubled since the energy crises of the 1970s, and more than 80 percent of this is provided by fossil fuels. In the next 24 years world consumption is forecast to grow by a further 44 percent—and U.S. consumption a further seven percent—with fossil fuels continuing to provide around 80 percent of total demand.

Where will these fossil fuels come from? There has been great enthusiasm recently for a renaissance in the production of oil and natural gas, particularly for the United States. Starting with calls in the 2008 presidential election to “drill, baby, drill!,” politicians and industry leaders alike now hail “one hundred years of gas” and anticipate the U.S. regaining its crown as the world’s foremost oil producer. Much of this optimism is based on the application of technologies like hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) and horizontal drilling to previously inaccessible shale reservoirs, and the development of unconventional sources such as tar sands and oil shale. Globally there is great hope for vast increases in oil production from underdeveloped regions such as Iraq. 

However, the real challenges—and costs—of 21st century fossil fuel production suggest that such vastly increased supplies will not be easily achieved or even possible. The geological and environmental realities of trying to fulfill these exuberant proclamations deserve a closer look.

Click here to see a report about the role of Wall Street investment banks in the recent shale gas drilling frenzy and related drop in natural gas prices, written by Deborah Rogers from Energy Policy Forum.

The petroleum age is not even 150 years old, and already we are worrying about supply. In contrast, consider that the Big Island will be over the “hot spot” for 500,000 to a million years.

We don’t need $200/barrel Aina Koa Pono biofuel, which will make us less competitive. What makes sense is the $57/barrel oil equivalent that is geothermal.

We in Hawai‘i need to prepare for worse case scenarios.

So how much time do we have and how do we take care of all of us?

We need to be practical: What works, works.

This is about competition. Low cost trumps high cost.

It’s about net energy. The energy left over from what’s expended in getting the energy is what we have left to use.

And it’s about common sense. When kids picking guava or waiawi in a pasture hear hoof beats, they run first. Then they look to see if it’s a horse or the wild bull.

Peak Oil

Geologist Arthur Berman Says ‘Shale Gas is a Commercial Failure in the U.S.’

Richard Ha writes:

Lately we have been hearing that natural gas will save us. But there are other opinions, and the truth probably lies somewhere in between.

• Chesapeake Energy, the largest shale gas producer, is losing billions of dollars. 

• ExxonMobil's CEO Rex Tillerson just announced that all in the gas business were "losing their shirts."

Exxon CEO: 'Losing Our Shirts' on Natural Gas Prices

–Making "no money" on U.S. natural gas

–Prices have fallen below cost of production

–Current prices aren't sustainable

By Jerry A. DiColo and Tom Fowler

NEW YORK–Even energy titan Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) is showing signs of strain from low natural gas prices.

On Wednesday Exxon Chief Executive Rex Tillerson broke from the previous company line that it wasn't being hurt by natural gas prices, admitting that the Irving, Texas-based firm is among those hurting from the price slump.

"We are all losing our shirts today." Mr. Tillerson said in a talk before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City. "We're making no money. It's all in the red."

His comments mark a departure from remarks made earlier this year on how lower natural gas prices hadn't yet hurt the company because of its operational efficiency and low production costs…. Read the rest

Arthur Berman is a geologist who has done extensive research in the area of shale gas production. In Denver, in 2009, I heard him on a panel discussing shale oil at the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO) conference. What he said made sense to me: It's only logical that natural gas from oil shale tends to decline rapidly, because gas flows more rapidly than oil.

In this YouTube video, Berman states,"To maintain current production, we need to replace one third of the country’s gas wells with new ones each year.”  

He calls shale gas a "commercial failure in the U.S."

 

The price of shale gas is too low because of oversupply. What is the break-even price? When we find that out, we will know a lot more about its sustainability.